IN THE MATTER OF THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
- and -
in the matter of a claim for benefit by
BENJAMIN K. VANDERLEEST
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an appeal by the Claimant from a decision of a Board of
Referees given at Burnaby, B.C., on the 15th day of February, 2000
D E C I S I O N
Hon. David G. Riche
The majority decision of the Board in this case found that the appeal should be dismissed. The information before the Board was from the claimant's mother Diane Vanderleest. She worked with the company accountant for some time after the change of ownership. She mentioned complaints to the Labour Standards branch. The claimant and his father who had formerly owned the place referred to a letter in Exhibit 8.2 about a new owner placing the staff on a three months probation and affecting current pay schedules as well as corresponding years of service. The letters went against the new owner/staff agreement and the claimant and his father took it to the Labour Relations which ruled against it. The new owner agreed that he had written the letter, then withdrawn it.
The claimant had other disagreements with the new owner, but on questioning could not recall bringing them up with Gary Dutton. He spoke of being provoked and pressured to leave as did two former employees who stated in written support of him (Exhibit 12.2). There appeared to be no doubt that there was antagonism between the new owner and the young son of the former owner. Different personalities and approach to business. The claimant appeared responsible and happy to be in a new job.
The Board majority found from the evidence that the environment was unpleasant. Nonetheless, although the claimant may have had very good cause to leave, he did not have just cause for voluntarily leaving.
The minority decision of the Board found that it was evident that under no circumstances could the claimant escape the fact that he was the ex-employer's son and did not fit in with the new employer's agenda. The antagonism between the parties to the appeal was obvious. The new facts (Exhibit 12.1 and 12.2) substantiated that the employer had a plan for the staff members who did not fit into his agenda. The employer stated at the hearing that he did not have to fire the claimant as it was common knowledge that the claimant was going to quit anyway. The claimant stated that he was being muscled out.
The Commission advised that the claimant failed to address any issues with the employer. At the hearing the claimant advised that he did attempt to resolve the problem with the employer. Also that he was successful in having part of the problem resolved through Employment Standards (29(c)(xi) practices of an employer that are contrary to law) but could not resolve many other factors regarding the antagonism.
The minority member of the Board found the claimant to be credible and the new facts provided just cause and for that reason the appeal was allowed.
I have considered these two decisions and have reviewed the file, and heard from the claimant. I am satisfied that, in applying common sense, one would determine that it is more likely than not the claimant was in the position where he was not wanted because of the conflict in approach to the business which he had with the new owner and the new owner with him. This was a situation which would not likely be resolved.
I find that the reasons submitted by the minority member of the Board is more consistent with the evidence than that of the majority. I can understand from the claimant's point of view that such a situation was intolerable for both the claimant and the employer. The result is that it would end in either the claimant being fired or him quitting his job. In these circumstances it seems more likely that the claimant had no reasonable alternative but to quit as he did.
For these reasons, the appeal is allowed and the decision of the minority of the Board confirmed.
David G. Riche
Umpire
May 5, 2001
St. John's, Newfoundland